Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
archernyc

El Bosque Air Base, Santiago, Chile

28 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

As the article says, "is this the case that the skeptics have been waiting for?"

Both Leslie Kean and Alejandro Rojas have posts in the Huffington Post today about this subject.

Like what has now just come to light in Chile, and was presented for the first time at an official press conference today.

It was a glorious, sunny morning on Nov. 5, 2010, when crowds gathered to celebrate the changing of the Air Force Command at El Bosque Air Base in Santiago. From different locations, spectators aimed video cameras and cell phones at groups of acrobatic and fighter jets performing an air show overhead. Nobody saw anything amiss.

But afterwards, an engineer from the adjacent Pillán aircraft factory noticed something bizarre while viewing his footage in slow motion. He turned it over to the government's well known Committee for the Study of Anomalous Aerial Phenomena, or CEFAA, for analysis.

The stunning conclusion: the Chilean jets were being stalked by a UFO.

Images show it as a dome-shaped, flat-bottomed object with no visible means of propulsion. The rounded top reflects the sun and appears metallic; the bottom is darker and flat, emitting some form of energy which is visible in photo analysis. Infrared studies show the entire object is radiating heat, just like the jets.
And, the strange object is clearly operating under intelligent control. It zooms towards each set of jets at about their height, circles around and zooms back out again. Pilots who were shown the trajectory of the object in the three flybys were amazed that this maneuver is characteristic of reconnaissance aircraft coming in for a quick look at others in the sky.

Astronomer Luis Barrera from the Metropolitan University of Sciences in Chile, with an asteroid to his name, was one of eight highly skeptical scientists who analyzed the footage. He was able to rule out a meteoroid, pieces of meteors or comets, space junk, a bird or an airplane.

"The object performed a risky flight maneuver in front of the Halcones from W-E-W, at low altitude and high speed," Dr. Barrera concluded. "It had intentional movements. It moved East with 25 degrees inclination, which is the same angle of spacecraft when entering the atmosphere."

Alberto Vergara, an expert in digital imaging, reported that "when we examine the whole scene frame by frame, we have been able to realize that it has, apparently, moved at a speed far superior to any flying object of known manufacture."

More from HuffPost

What do YOU think??

Edited by archernyc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but this is not THE ONE.

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but this is not THE ONE.

:D

Id like to see the actual vid before really thinking about it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Here's one of the seven videos taken from different perspectives. I don't know if the other six are accessible, only discussed in the article.

http://embed.5min.com/517303225/'/

More from HuffPost

Edited by linttrap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bugs maybe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The guy in the Grey shirt hidden behind the two in the forefront on the Left lower corner is flying a R/C plane in the footage !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but this is not THE ONE.

:D

Would you perhaps be interested in clarifying your reasons for thinking so rather than just saying one sentence followed by a Smilie?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it does seem to fit with the known principles of UFO flying characteristics, i will say. beyond that, I would not like to speculate at this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Would you perhaps be interested in clarifying your reasons for thinking so rather than just saying one sentence followed by a Smilie?

He asked a question, I answered 747400. But I will of course clarify my reasoning when asked.

1. Where is the so called report(the scientific analysis)?

2. If this is so groundbreaking why would you present this evidence at a UFO congress and not at a scientific congress or publish the findings in a scientific journal?

3. If you look at the video available on youtube frame by frame(not sec by sec), you will see the UFO is not in every frame? Why is that?

4. This is from 2010! If the evidence was that good it would not take that long to come up with a reasonable analysis that its is indeed not from Earth.

Again if this was THE ONE, we would have heard of this sooner and would be presented with the so called scientific report.

:D

Edited by Scepticus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very convincing; well done for posting this. The footage seems to be getting better and better; keep it coming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Scepticus,

Just playing devil's advocate here. I appreciate your rationale, and would like to explore it further...

1) Many reports never see the light of day...

2) Scientific Journals have incredibly high standards. I recently authored a paper that suggested a method of reducing carbon in Earth's atmosphere, and the paper was denied by Nature, and Science. After hearing their reasons, it made sense, and the answer could also be used to deny a paper entry on the UFO topic. Journals such as this require repeatable experiments. You simply cannot repeat what happened in the video (testing all of the options that is...) without a UFO to test for that hypothesis. You can test some of the more terrestrial ones, but journals like Science and Nature like answers. They specifically like solid answers that were derived from studies that can be repeated by anyone...

3) You are correct, the UFO is not in every frame. This would be expected though, if you do a comparison of the apparent speed of the 'object' against the speed of the fighter jets... The camera is limited by it's shutter speed. It is possible (although not with current human tech in the public domain) to move faster than the camera can capture. This could also be possible with a close to the camera bug... However it would not be possible if indeed there was an RC plane flying around in an attempt to fake a ufo sighting...

4) This is now 2012 (2010 in the article, yes), and in reality 2 years isn't much when dealing with the entire conscious mindset of the human race. The Battle of Los Angeles happened more than 60 years ago, and to date the United States Navy is on record stating that event contained an 'Unidentified Flying Object', one that took all the punishment our US Anti-Aircraft Batteries could throw at it... and then flew off without damage...

Thoughts?

- Brand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Scepticus,

Just playing devil's advocate here. I appreciate your rationale, and would like to explore it further...

1) Many reports never see the light of day...

2) Scientific Journals have incredibly high standards. I recently authored a paper that suggested a method of reducing carbon in Earth's atmosphere, and the paper was denied by Nature, and Science. After hearing their reasons, it made sense, and the answer could also be used to deny a paper entry on the UFO topic. Journals such as this require repeatable experiments. You simply cannot repeat what happened in the video (testing all of the options that is...) without a UFO to test for that hypothesis. You can test some of the more terrestrial ones, but journals like Science and Nature like answers. They specifically like solid answers that were derived from studies that can be repeated by anyone...

3) You are correct, the UFO is not in every frame. This would be expected though, if you do a comparison of the apparent speed of the 'object' against the speed of the fighter jets... The camera is limited by it's shutter speed. It is possible (although not with current human tech in the public domain) to move faster than the camera can capture. This could also be possible with a close to the camera bug... However it would not be possible if indeed there was an RC plane flying around in an attempt to fake a ufo sighting...

4) This is now 2012 (2010 in the article, yes), and in reality 2 years isn't much when dealing with the entire conscious mindset of the human race. The Battle of Los Angeles happened more than 60 years ago, and to date the United States Navy is on record stating that event contained an 'Unidentified Flying Object', one that took all the punishment our US Anti-Aircraft Batteries could throw at it... and then flew off without damage...

Thoughts?

- Brand

Hello devils advocate :)

some good points made there. May I ask for any further details you have on the bolded part.....I have spent much time arguing that there was an object there so any furtehr info is always handy :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just can't wait to see ALL SIX other videos. Oh wait, no-one has? Not even UFO-book-author Leslie Kean? In 2 years? Gee, now there's a surprise...

I guess maybe da aliens used dere powers to erase dem other ones. Or did the Chilean Air Force learn a lesson watching the egg-splattering that the Mexican AF got over the infamous Cantarell oil-flare UFO (oops, IG-BO) case? And did the aliens stop any of the folk who took these videos from showing up at any forum, or posting them independently..? Let's be clear - there isn't ONE report of anyone actually seeing these things.

Anyway, maybe the same day that all the other videos show up, the supposed analysis will also show up. :rolleyes:

I REALLY can't wait for that!!!

What gets me is the ridiculous over-enlargement being touted as a 'dome' (when it is more likely to be a simple sharpening halo effect) and the claim of HD quality - the quality is nothing like HD. And the equally ridiculous and unsupported claims about speeds - you CANNOT determine speeds from a video without knowing the distance/size of the object, or having other simultaneous videos showing the same object - yes, those would the videos that don't exist.

And then there's the fact that NO-ONE has claimed they saw these things, and it was only seen after they checked this video? And I'm curious, how did 'they' get the other videos, given everyione had gone home from the air show afterwards? After all, it's been stated that despite the six other videos supposedly existing - none of the videographers actually saw anything (nor anyone in the crowd)..

This whole things just beggars belief - WHERE IS THE ANALYSIS and the OTHER VIDEOS? Like I said, I'm really looking forward to the alleged analysis - I suspect that it doesn't exist, or if it does, it will be an even bigger laugh than the Cantarell case.

Thus far we have one video showing what looks *exactly* like bugs, and then a whole pile of claims from just one source, a retired Chilean general who now heads up a pseudo-science organisation that only investigates 'anomalous aerial phenomena'. Playing D-A for a moment, is the CEFAA the sort of thing the Chilean gov't does for retired generals, instead of superannuation and a golden handshake? Give them a little 'authority' to be in charge of, pop them over into a little office somewhere, investigating ufo's.., writing reports, gathering well-meaning non-experts to make comments that are then quoted as 'many scientists have said..' :D No, that would never happen, surely.

Gee, there certainly aren't many red flags in amongst this one.. :P

BTW, I'll be delighted to apologise if I'm wrong, but that will be when I see the other videos and the published report and it is acknowledged by *real* experts to be properly done...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leslie Kean has posted an update to this case:

Perhaps Blumenthal and I asked too many provocative rhetorical questions and did not stress enough that this investigation is continuing, as Bermúdez and Vergara stated. And now the search for the "scientific conclusion" has been given new life. After the story broke, photo analysts and investigators from several countries approached the CEFAA and asked if they could study the videos. A few, because of their qualifications, have already begun detailed, independent work on the case. They will remain anonymous for now. Further questions, some of which have been raised in response to our story, will be addressed by them during this process.

In accordance with the wishes of the scientific team in Chile and these new analysts, General Bermúdez will not be releasing any more videos now, so that the public can be fully informed and maximum understanding achieved when the full package is released. Those involved agree that the new studies should be completed first.

When the CEFAA examiners first viewed the tape we've seen, presented to them by an engineer who noticed the odd object when he slowed down his film, they too thought it likely that the jumpy little thing was a bug. However, they decided to try and locate additional films. It was only after discovering that the object appeared on these other videos from different locations -- taken by cameras too far apart to capture the same insect -- that the Chilean analysts realized this object could not be possibly be a bug, according to CEFAA staff.
Brett C. Ratcliffe, professor and curator at the University of Nebraska State Museum and Department of Entomology, received "outstanding paper of the year" awards by the Coleopterists Society in 1992 and 2005 and has had 19 species of insects, mostly scarab beetles, named after him. (A beetle seems the most likely choice here, given the rounded, dome shape and flat bottom of the clearest close-ups from the videos.) "Pretty amazing," he replied to my email with its strange attachments. "No idea what it is but it does not seem to be an insect . . . altho very fast flying insects captured on slow shutter speeds do look like amorphous blurs or blobs. I am forwarding these to several colleagues and asking around."

Amorphous blobs? Yes, that's more often what flying insects close to a camera look like.

More here

It will be interesting to see what else develops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leslie Kean has posted an update to this case..

And I'm afraid my opinion of Leslie Kean is dropping by the second.

First up, why is she not pursuing the simple fact that they keep claiming there are other videos and that these videos show the same objects, YET NONE OF THE 'EXTRA' VIDEOS HAVE BEEN SHOWN - NOT EVEN A SINGLE STILL?

What possible reason could there be for the delays? Triangulation isn't exactly rocket science - lining up the timings and angles might take a day or so.. How long has it been, now? :rolleyes:

Secondly, why the heck is she asking bug experts? That may sound like a stupid question, but the 'objects' are WAY OUT OF FOCUS. That means that their expertise is pretty much wasted - they have barely any useful information to identify the object, except perhaps the nature of its movement... and UNLESS they are experts at photogrammetry their idle guesses about how fast they were going and how far away from the lens are absolutely useless.

And of course she must have only taken this ONE video to them, as she has no access to these other alleged videos.

This is turning into a debacle.

Here's an open invitation to Leslie Kean, why not come on over and discuss the situation here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an open invitation to Leslie Kean, why not come on over and discuss the situation here?

I wouldn't count on it. But maybe if you commented on her Facebook page... ?

By the way, I agree with your critiques. It seems quite obvious to me that the video we have seen shows nothing more than bugs (and planes of course...).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Thanks for that link Boony - that's great stuff! Can't wait to hear about the other sighting she mentions.

I didn't even realize that she's on FB, duh! :blink:

Edited by archernyc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that link Boony - that's great stuff! Can't wait to hear about the other sighting she mentions.

I didn't even realize that she's on FB, duh! :blink:

You're very welcome for the link archer. :)

I'm curious though. Do you think there is anything other than bugs depicted in that video?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Scepticus,

Just playing devil's advocate here. I appreciate your rationale, and would like to explore it further...

1) Many reports never see the light of day...

Hello BrandOfAmber! Sorry for the late reply.

Wouldn't you agree if top military officials claim they have made a scientific report which establish the objects in the released video are not from this world, they should released the report so every one could have a look at their evidence.

2) Scientific Journals have incredibly high standards. I recently authored a paper that suggested a method of reducing carbon in Earth's atmosphere, and the paper was denied by Nature, and Science. After hearing their reasons, it made sense, and the answer could also be used to deny a paper entry on the UFO topic. Journals such as this require repeatable experiments. You simply cannot repeat what happened in the video (testing all of the options that is...) without a UFO to test for that hypothesis. You can test some of the more terrestrial ones, but journals like Science and Nature like answers. They specifically like solid answers that were derived from studies that can be repeated by anyone...

Sad to hear, just out of curiosity what is the method?

But if you are able to claim at an UFO conference you have had top scientists working on this report for 2 years, i wouldn't imagine any scietific journal would reject the report if its is well documented and the evidence is irrefutable. Even if it was rejected, you could still present the evidence at a scientific conference, no reviewing process is needed there.

BTW i have seen a lot of junk science being published by journals, you just need to find the right journal.

3) You are correct, the UFO is not in every frame. This would be expected though, if you do a comparison of the apparent speed of the 'object' against the speed of the fighter jets... The camera is limited by it's shutter speed. It is possible (although not with current human tech in the public domain) to move faster than the camera can capture. This could also be possible with a close to the camera bug... However it would not be possible if indeed there was an RC plane flying around in an attempt to fake a ufo sighting...

Thanks! I'm no video expert, but your explanation makes sense.

4) This is now 2012 (2010 in the article, yes), and in reality 2 years isn't much when dealing with the entire conscious mindset of the human race. The Battle of Los Angeles happened more than 60 years ago, and to date the United States Navy is on record stating that event contained an 'Unidentified Flying Object', one that took all the punishment our US Anti-Aircraft Batteries could throw at it... and then flew off without damage...

Thoughts?

- Brand

The L.A incident is indeed very interesting. Maybe it's because i haven't really looked at the case in depth, but my take on this ballte of Los Angeles is that war nerves and war hype might have something to do with the incident. This might just be ignorance, i'll have to look into this.

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The L.A incident is indeed very interesting. Maybe it's because i haven't really looked at the case in depth, but my take on this ballte of Los Angeles is that war nerves and war hype might have something to do with the incident. This might just be ignorance, i'll have to look into this.

:D

hey Scepticus, yes there are some good threads on here (even covered in one of the BE threads in depth).....

as for bolded, yes, they may have played a part but not at the expense of an object in the sky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious though. Do you think there is anything other than bugs depicted in that video?

From the article:

"The existence of more than one video, taken by different people at different distances catching the same scene, inclines us to believe this is not just a bug," Bermúdez told me last week. "We do not owe anything to anyone on this, because we are interested only in the science. However, we will give further details when these other studies are completed."

Also, reading between the lines from what Kean has to say, I suspect that she has been shown the other videos but has agreed not to disclose that she has seen them. I don't think she would have written about this case without seeing more than this one video which raises more questions than answers. Do you think the Chilean organization is just trying to create interest to drive tourism? :rolleyes:

I'm looking forward to hearing more on this and the release of the other videos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the article:

Also, reading between the lines from what Kean has to say, I suspect that she has been shown the other videos but has agreed not to disclose that she has seen them. I don't think she would have written about this case without seeing more than this one video which raises more questions than answers. Do you think the Chilean organization is just trying to create interest to drive tourism? :rolleyes:

I'm looking forward to hearing more on this and the release of the other videos.

Yes, I read the article. I was asking whether you gave credence to it. I guess that you do. Thanks archer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Update from Leslie Kean's Facebook page:

Exciting News! I'm going to Santiago, Chile on June 7th on an "official visit" with the CEFAA. The staff are arranging interviews for me with high level military and aviation officials, scientists and police who work with them to investigate UAP. General Ricardo Bermudez (photo) is the head of the CEFAA.

She'll be there this Thursday...

I will certainly be writing about this after I get back. I expect to learn a lot about how the CEFAA operates and has won so much respect throughout the country, at all levels. And hopefully I will have interesting case information as well.

Let's hope that she gets to see all 7 videos and perhaps posts them!

This is an exclusive interview with Leslie Kean and Jose Lay, the Director of International Affairs for Chile’s official UFO investigation organization, CEFAA. The Committee of Studies of Anomalous Aerial Phenomena (CEFAA) is an arm of Chile's version of the FAA. They have been busy for decades investigating high level UFO sightings, many by the military, commercial pilots and control tower operators. As an official organization, CEFAA tries to keep a low profile and rarely grants interviews. However, at the request of Leslie Kean, author of the book UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record, they are allowing Jose to speak with us. This is a first for U.S. radio. This interview is a rare glimpse into the inner workings of CEFAA and their outreach program to work with the governments of other countries to investigate the UFO Phenomenon.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/ufothinktank/2012/06/05/leslie-kean-jose-lay-chiles-official-ufo-investigations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just bumping this, as it was mentioned elsewhere.

Does anyone have any new information?

Where is the promised info and follow up from Kean - if none, what excuses does she offer?

Where are the other videos (or even any stills thereof)?

Where is the analysis?

Does Bermudez seriously get paid for this sort of 'effort'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A well-known UAP=UFO=Alienz!! supporter who shall remain nameless, has now posted a link to this report by a 'Richard Haines':

NARCAP PDF (approx 1Mb)

First, a confession. I was sorta hoping he would bring that report up, as it is a fabulous textbook example of the worst of ufology, and yet some folks swallow it up eagerly..

Over the next few weeks (yes, I'm a bit time challenged and it's Xmas..!), starting with this brief post, I'll be looking at this report in great detail and explaining why it is a load of excrement... Others are most welcome to join in, preferably with some expertise rather than handwaving.. As for me I'll be backing up my comments and refutations with actual quotes along with appropriate cites and references, even some diagrams and a little basic mathematics..

In that process, I'll be referring to this page:

Huff'ton Post Article

which is a lengthy 'expose' by UFO-promoter and self appointed expert Leslie Kean, who tells us she was invited to talk to the analysts and those most familiar with the 'case'.

So let's start, shall we..? Note that any bold or highlighting of text in the following quotes is mine. The report first states:

This paper presents the results of an analysis of many video segments taken on November 5, 2010 at the El Bosque Air Force Base in the S.W. suburbs of Santiago, Chile.

Remember those words for later.. This initially seems in line with Leslie Kean's report, which states:

CEFAA officials collected seven videos of the El Bosque UFO taken from different vantage points.

and:

The UFO was captured on seven cameras from different vantage points.

I think that is all pretty clear.. right? Back to the report:

an angularly small, low-contrast, oval- shaped object was recorded by two digital video cameras

Now I'll come back to the angular size, low contrast and alleged oval-shape later, but did seven (or many) just turn into TWO?

Sigh. Ok, let's move on.. Haines goes on:

the same UAP was very probably recorded by two digital cameras at the same time on one occasion which made it possible to estimate its nearest distance and thus, a likely range of UAP sizes..

So, now that we are down to TWO cameras, it's only 'very probable'?? But Haines is nevertheless happy to give a range of distances and sizes, and then he moves on to this classic:

The relatively short "flight" durations, high angular velocities and high speed changes in direction and small angular size of the UAP, recorded during seven of the ten airplane formation fly-overs, help explain why no one saw them at the time; these characteristics would appear to qualify these UAP as anomalous; they cannot be explained in prosaic terms.

Righto then. One thing everyone agrees upon - NO-ONE saw anything.

Now, high angular speeds and maneuvers can mean one of two things - either it's a distant object going at high speeds, or it's something quite close going at much lower speeds, Something like.. an INSECT (in prosaic terms). Now, why didn't Haines elaborate on that? Well, because he has allegedly found two pieces of footage (not seven) that PROBABLY show a correlation from which he worked out distances.. and thereby dismissed that possibility, despite it being a pretty good, if prosaic, explanation.

Now let's be very clear on this - anyone even remotely familiar with photogrammetry (the science of working out 'stuff' from images), will tell you that unless you have unambiguous and measurable information about either the size or distance of an object, you CANNOT make any determination about actual distances, sizes or speeds. A camera simply measures ANGULAR information - close up things look big and fast, far away things look small and slow, and unless you KNOW some of the variables, you cannot make guesses. I'll expand on those variables later (something Haines didn't do, and probably doesn't want to..)

So, how did Haines get his 'match' between two cameras to allow positive identification of the same object, and then allow trinagulation..? Well.. this is where the report seems to leave out something very important.. Haines takes us through several items that he claims are near matches - yet notably, he doesn't claim an exact match. Now at that point, one would expect to see an overlay of the images to show the correlation so that the report reader can see just how close the match is - after all, if there are many insects present that day, then some of them will probably fly in the same sort of directions, given wind conditions and the fact that they are probably going from .. somewhere they live to somewhere they feed or v-v. Hardly a surprise if some of them followed similar paths..

Anyway, these correlation diagrams would be of vital importance to prove Haines claim, and they should be somewhere around page 22.. But they aren't there. We simply get Haines textual assurances that he found a .. well, almost .. sort of.. match.

Now lets remember - at the commencement of all this - there were allegedly SEVEN correlating videos from different cameras and viewpoints!! That was the claim made by Kean, Bermudez, CEFAA. Yet it turns out that there most certainly were NOT seven separate videos, and it finally transpires that of the two that were cherry-picked, there wasn't even ONE correlation that was worthy of actually showing.

Anyway, I've got a lot more to say about this section, and I haven't even started on the rest of that ridiculous report. Wait till I get to the bit where he uses 50X magnification! Haines makes CSI 'enhancements' look real.. Note that the following video is just for laughs, especially for those bemused by some of the ignorant rubbish proferred by supposed imaging experts:

:D I specially like the 'Rotate' bit.. I want *that* software..

Anyway, the rest will have to wait - I've got to get ready for a Xmas lunch (with my alien overlords - oops, wasn't supposed to say that...).

Edited by Chrlzs
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.